movies

[lukethedrifter]

PTA had to whittle it down to avoid getting sued by the Church of Scientology and I'd love to see what got hacked out of the screenplay.

This is what I'm curious about. Can he even call this the film that it was meant to be if he had to chunk out a ton of meat- not to meet his standards as a director but to keep from getting sued? I'd like to know if PTA is artistically satisfied with the final cut.

[JL21]

PTA had to whittle it down to avoid getting sued by the Church of Scientology and I'd love to see what got hacked out of the screenplay.

This is what I'm curious about. Can he even call this the film that it was meant to be if he had to chunk out a ton of meat- not to meet his standards as a director but to keep from getting sued? I'd like to know if PTA is artistically satisfied with the final cut.

I've seen conflicting info about it, actually, where both he and Philip Seymour Hoffman have said that they were never contacted by the Church of Scientology, and that they didn't change a thing. So maybe I was wrong about it.

Allegedly, he also showed it to Tom Cruise (they're friends going back to Magnolia) and Cruise only had some mild objections.

For all of the goofiness of the cult in that film, the film isn't about the cult at all. It's about the master/dog relationship between Quell and Dodd, the exploration of free will, the purposeful loss of it in the hope of something larger, etc...

[Vidor]

Is there a source backing up this notion that PTA had to change his screenplay to make Scientologists happy?

[JL21]

Is there a source backing up this notion that PTA had to change his screenplay to make Scientologists happy?

It was a vague reason given a year ago or so when shooting was postponed. If you follow the industry at all, then you saw the rumors. I think it was even on his Wikipedia page at one point. The people financing it backed out, shooting was delayed, Universal dumped the film...

[thrill]

PTA had to whittle it down to avoid getting sued by the Church of Scientology and I'd love to see what got hacked out of the screenplay.

This is what I'm curious about. Can he even call this the film that it was meant to be if he had to chunk out a ton of meat- not to meet his standards as a director but to keep from getting sued? I'd like to know if PTA is artistically satisfied with the final cut.

I've seen conflicting info about it, actually, where both he and Philip Seymour Hoffman have said that they were never contacted by the Church of Scientology, and that they didn't change a thing. So maybe I was wrong about it.

Allegedly, he also showed it to Tom Cruise (they're friends going back to Magnolia) and Cruise only had some mild objections.

For all of the goofiness of the cult in that film, the film isn't about the cult at all. It's about the master/dog relationship between Quell and Dodd, the exploration of free will, the purposeful loss of it in the hope of something larger, etc...

For me, all of PTA's films are mostly about how even society's outliers have the need for acceptance from a family or group and how the surrogate family can be the only thing keeping someone from total despair and self-destruction.

I know everyone realizes this already. I'm just saying.

[Vidor]

Is there a source backing up this notion that PTA had to change his screenplay to make Scientologists happy?

It was a vague reason given a year ago or so when shooting was postponed. If you follow the industry at all, then you saw the rumors. I think it was even on his Wikipedia page at one point. The people financing it backed out, shooting was delayed, Universal dumped the film...

I did follow the story. Universal backed out in 2010, some rich lady swooped in and put up thirty million or so to make the film, and the delay was the reason why Joaquin Phoenix got the part that was originally going to Jeremy Renner. What I haven't heard is that Anderson made any alterations to the script to make it more palatable to Scientologists. Don't think that's true.

[JL21]

"More palatable to Scientologists" would be one way of saying it. Avoiding legal action from the Church of Scientology would be more apt. The Church of Scientology has had no issues flexing their legal muscle in the past when it comes to Hollywood, so I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to think that it'd be a sensitive issue for a movie so clearly tied to the religion.

If you're looking for a link, I'm sorry. I don't have one. Believe it if you want, don't believe it if you don't. Like I already said in the post before yours, PTA and Hoffman both say there was no intrusion.

[Vidor]

If you're looking for a link, I'm sorry. I don't have one. Believe it if you want, don't believe it if you don't. Like I already said in the post before yours, PTA and Hoffman both say there was no intrusion.

Well, I'll have to pick "don't", given that there's no evidence this happened and the persons involved say it didn't happen.

[JL21]

Thanks for letting me know, bro!

[Vidor]

Thanks for letting me know, bro!

::shrugs:: Nothing personal, it's just that you made an assertion (that Anderson revised the script) that doesn't appear to be supported by any facts.

Anyway, I'm finally getting to see this today. So stoked.